Western logic on Syria: ‘We need to bomb it to save it’

Nile Bowie is an independent writer and current affairs commentator based in Singapore. Originally from New York City, he has lived in the Asia-Pacific region for nearly a decade and was previously a columnist with the Malaysian Reserve newspaper, in addition to working actively in non-governmental organisations and creative industries. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com.

The military buildup in the Mediterranean indicates that Assad’s opponents intend to militarily intervene in Syria under cover of ‘humanitarian intervention’, a disingenuous narrative that could not be further from the truth.

Pictures and videos that have surfaced following the alleged use
of chemical agents in the eastern suburbs of Damascus are
profoundly disturbing and a thorough and substantial
investigation into what took place there is absolutely essential.
However, it is conversely disturbing that those Western
governments who have staunchly supported anti-government
militants are using this opportunity to legitimize the use of
force against the government in Damascus.

The United States, Britain, and France are unwavering in their
assertions that the Assad government and the Syrian Arab army
were the perpetrators of the chemical weapon attack, despite no
evidence to substantiate these claims. These governments seem to
be sure that Damascus is guilty on the basis of it preventing a
UN investigation team from visiting the site, and when
investigators eventually did reach the area, it didn’t matter to
them because they argued that the Syrian government had destroyed
all evidence of wrongdoing.

Assad’s opponents have constructed a deeply cynical and
hysterical political narrative that Western leaders are now
parroting in unison.

There are several reasons why Damascus showed hesitation in
allowing UN inspectors to access the site, the most apparent
being that this attack allegedly took place in rebel-held
strongholds on the outskirts of the capital, and that the
security of the UN team could not be guaranteed if rebels
attacked them or launched more chemical weapons during their
visit.

Syrian rebels have demonstrated their hostility to UN forces on
previous occasions; anti-government groups kidnapped 21 UN
peacekeepers in the Golan Heights in March, and another four
peacekeepers later in May. That the UN convoy was fired upon by
unidentified snipers is hardly surprising in that it is another
stunt in a series of moves to escalate the situation to provoke
an international response.

The UN team eventually made it to the site to
collect evidence and, contrary to Western assertions, the UN
claimed that it was still possible for the team of experts to
gather necessary evidence despite the time elapsed since the
alleged attack.

Who benefits from using chemical weapons?

The narrative that the Assad government used chemical weapons,
specifically while a UN team was in Damascus to investigate
previous uses of chemical weapons, is tactically and politically
illogical and in no way serves the interests of the Syrian
government.

These attacks transparently serve the interests of
anti-government militias who have long called for NATO
intervention, as well as the Syrian political opposition who are
now refusing to take part in any planned Geneva negotiations.
Furthermore, allegations that the regime used chemical weapons
benefits the international opponents of Assad, who have
materially and financially aided and armed non-state actors and
foreign fighters on an unprecedented scale.

“Warplanes and military transporters” have been moved to
Britain’s Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus in the latest sign of
the allied forces’ preparations for a military strike on
Syria amid bellicose rhetoric against the Syrian government,
it was reported on Tuesday.

Above all, the use of chemical weapons benefits the arms
industry, as four US warships with ballistic missiles are moving
into position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, ready to shower
Damascus with Tomahawk cruise missiles – all under the auspices
of protecting civilians. Lockheed Martin’s stock prices have
dramatically shot up since news of the chemical weapons
attack.

There are numerous revelations that would suggest that
anti-government militias have access to these weapons and are in
fact guilty of using them. Carla Del Ponte, head of a UN
commission of inquiry that looked into the use of chemical
weapons in northern Syria in late March suggested that the
evidence was stronger to implicate anti-government militants in
using chemical weapons, not the Syrian government.

In May, Turkish police found cylinders of sarin nerve gas in the
homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front
who were detained in the south near Syria’s northern border. In
July, Russian experts submitted reports to the UN detailing how
the missiles used in previous chemical weapon attacks were crude
and not factory made, and that the chemical components found were
not consistent with what the Syrian military has.

The Syrian military has just recently discovered chemical weapons
in a rebel tunnel in the Jobar suburb of Damascus, including
shells, gasmasks manufactured in the United States, chemical
substances of Saudi Arabian origin. Arabic language reports also
indicate that a former high-ranking Saudi Arabian member of
Al-Nusra Front claimed that the group possessed chemical weapons
in a tweet.

NATO intervention replicating the Kosovo model?

The speeches and statements from John Kerry, Laurent Fabius, or
William Hague all imply that military action will be taken
against Damascus despite lacking a legal basis of action. If
‘humanitarian intervention’ were to be undertaken, it would need
approval from the UNSC in the form of a resolution, but such a
resolution would not be passed because countries such as Russia
believe that this kind of intervention would be used as a pretext to
remove the legal government of Syria, as it has been used in
the recent past in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya – all
with undeniable abuses of force that have resulted in substantial
civilian casualties.

Reports indicate that Obama’s team is now studying the NATO
mission in Kosovo as a “possible blueprint for acting without
a mandate from the United Nations.” It is ominous, alarming
and bizarre how NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia
could be used a positive reference point for anything. NATO
rained down bombs for 78 straight days, effectively smashing
civilian infrastructure in Serbia and Montenegro while hospitals,
schools, and public utilities were damaged beyond repair, killing
over 1,200 civilians and injuring 4,500 more.

Despite Obama’s cautious tone in recent interviews, all
indications point to military intervention already being decided.
Carla Del Ponte’s assessment was whitewashed, and any other
evidence provided by the UN that does not fit conveniently into
the Western narrative will be suppressed – the US position is
that it is already “too late” for any evidence to be
credible.

The huge military buildup of US and British ships and warplanes
in the Mediterranean comes while the Pentagon is reportedly
making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on
Syrian government forces.

The intransigence and cynical duplicity of Assad’s opponents is
unparalleled, and their media outlets are complicit in pulling
the heart strings of their audiences while offering a totally
one-sided perspective in support of R2P, the ‘right to
protect.’

The US, Britain, and France see themselves as righteous
protectors, and rationality and evidence will not be enough to
break their dangerous and ridiculous delusions; these states are
the vanguards of militant corporatism and have demonstrated that
they seek only their private economic and geopolitical objectives
in the region.

Those countries that represent a balanced approach to this crisis
should not stand idly by while the West ‘comes to the aid’
of the Syrian people with cruise missiles and airstrikes – they
should not allow intervention under ‘humanitarian’ auspices to
harm civilians and topple the legal authorities in Damascus.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.